Notes on criticism and praise after the social media workshops

Among my character flaws is the difficulty of accepting criticism without taking it personally. I’ve had no shortage of opportunities to practice becoming better at this; nonetheless, I have not, in fact, gotten better at it.
Another character flaw is my inability to lie, even when it would be beneficial to do so, or to “play the game.” I don’t have a high tolerance for b.s., I’ve never conformed simply for the sake of fitting in, and if I don’t agree with something, it’s almost impossible for me to play along. I’m just real, and in certain situations, that’s not particularly helpful.
*
Two weeks ago, I presented three back-to-back social media workshops in three different cities in Belize. Participants included hoteliers, tour operators, small business owners, a dry cleaner, and other folks both affiliated and totally unaffiliated with the tourism industry.

The first two workshops were loads of fun. I felt like I was “on,” that the audience and I had established a pretty good rapport, and that I was sharing information and ideas that the majority of the participants would benefit from. There was give and take and a true dialogue, and when a participant didn’t agree with what I was saying, he or she would speak up and we’d have a thoughtful, respectful conversation about it. By the time I got back to my hotel in the evenings, I had a dozen or more emails, thanking me for the workshop and asking more questions. I felt great. Who doesn’t love praise?

The vibe of the third workshop was completely different. The audience’s affect felt flat, for the most part, and there wasn’t much conversation. By looking at their faces, I couldn’t tell if the participants were feeling like the workshop was a valuable use of their time; in fact, I couldn’t even tell if they were “with me.” I finished the presentation exhausted and a little disappointed, and hopped back in the car to drive back to Belize City.
Before I left, though, a woman approached me and clasped my hand in hers. She wanted to tell me that the workshop was “fantastic” and that what she loved the most was that I “admitted” I was ambivalent about Facebook. I was somewhat relieved; at least the workshop had been beneficial to her. I still didn’t know about anyone else though.

As I grabbed a snack off the coffee break table, I happened to glance at one of the participant evaluations. “Julie was NOT passionate about social media,” the feedback on the top sheet read. The handwriting even looked angry. “The fact that she said she hates Facebook means she shouldn’t be leading a social media workshop.”

It’s insane, I know, but this one guy (because, of course, I KNOW it was a guy) temporarily undid all the good mojo that had built up in the preceding two days. It didn’t matter that 30 people had emailed me to tell me I’d done a great job, that they felt like they’d turned a corner in their business, that they suddenly felt less intimidated by social media, and that they felt validated by what I’d told them… the fact that this one guy thought I was a loser, well, that left me feeling like one.

I had not, for the record, said that I hated Facebook. I said that I feel “profoundly ambivalent” about Facebook because while it is inarguably a critical social media tool for the business I’m in, the company doesn’t really respect its users and has crappy privacy policies. I suppose the guy wanted me to be a cheerleader for Facebook and the other social media we discussed; in reality, one of my primary messages was that not every social media tool works well (or at all) for everyone, AND that if using social media is going to distract you from doing what you do best (providing excellent customer service as a small business owner, which is 99% of the businesses in Belize), then don’t do it. 

Anathema, I know.
I wish I could wrap this up by saying that I’ve learned, once and for all, that not everyone is going to like me, that no one is ever going to be 100% happy with me 100% of the time. I know this, of course, but I’m clearly not truly incorporating it into my worldview, since I’m still thinking about this guy two weeks later.

What I have taken away, though, is that whenever you stand by what you believe in, even if it’s something as unimportant in the larger scheme of things as social media, there will always be people who get all twisted up about it, and that’s ok. You’ve only ever got to be confident enough in yourself and in your ideas and beliefs to stand by them.

Defining Critical Thinking

Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself. Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years.  The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century.  We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.  Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987 A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the {presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987}. Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.  Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated;  2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.  Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’s own, or one's groups’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.  Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor. Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way.  People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically.   They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked.  They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies.  They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking.  They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason.  They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest.  They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society.   At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so.  They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others.  They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement.  They embody the Socratic principle:  The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world. ~ Linda Elder, September, 2007 Why Critical Thinking? The Problem Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. A Definition Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. The Result A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.  (Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008). Critical Thinking Defined by Edward Glaser In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines critical thinking as follows “The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume, involves three things: ( 1 ) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life. (Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking, Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1941).